State v. Williams, 20050031-CA.
Citation | 147 P.3d 497,2006 UT App 420 |
Decision Date | 13 October 2006 |
Docket Number | No. 20050031-CA.,20050031-CA. |
Parties | STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Davey Joe WILLIAMS, Defendant and Appellant. |
Court | Court of Appeals of Utah |
Joan C. Watt and Isaac McDougall, Salt Lake Legal Defender Association, Salt Lake City, for Appellant.
Mark L. Shurtleff, Attorney General, Marian Decker, Assistant Attorney General, and Brent M. Johnson, Salt Lake City, for Appellee.
Before Judges GREENWOOD, ORME, and THORNE.
¶ 1 Davey Joe Williams pleaded guilty to two class A misdemeanor counts of attempted illegal possession or use of a controlled substance. See Utah Code Ann. § 58-37-8(2)(a)(i) (Supp.2006). Williams appeals his sentence for those offenses, as well as two1 findings of contempt of court entered against him at sentencing. We affirm Williams's sentence but vacate the findings of contempt.
¶ 2 On November 12, 2004, Williams pleaded guilty to two counts of attempted drug possession and the State dismissed several lesser counts. Upon hearing this proposed disposition, the trial court commented that it was a "[p]retty good plea deal" and asked the prosecutor "to explain why he's getting such a great deal."
¶ 3 The prosecutor explained that Williams had already been committed to prison on a separate conviction and that the State's recommendation was that any sentences of incarceration resulting from the guilty pleas should be served concurrent to each other, and concurrent to Williams's ongoing term of incarceration. The court commented that such an arrangement The prosecutor responded that, even with concurrent sentences, the Board of Pardons would require about four additional months of incarceration on each class A misdemeanor.
¶ 4 The trial court proceeded to take Williams's pleas. After advising Williams of his constitutional rights, the court stated:
Oh, one more thing. These counts can run concurrent or consecutive with one another, that is at the same time, for no more than a year in jail, or consecutive to one another, for two years in jail. They can also run concurrent or consecutive to the term you're doing; do you understand that?
Williams responded affirmatively. The court then asked Williams if anyone had made him any promises "with reference to that," and Williams said no.
¶ 5 Williams entered his pleas and elected to be sentenced immediately. The prosecutor apprised the court of Williams's extensive history of arrests, charges, and convictions dating back to 1977 and continuing through the drug possession conviction for which Williams was already incarcerated. When the trial court expressed some lack of memory of its previous sentencing of Williams to prison on the prior drug possession conviction, the prosecutor explained that the court "w[as] considering sending him to Odyssey House [treatment facility], but Mr. Williams declined that offer." The court commented, "Oh, that would mean no drugs."
¶ 6 The trial court asked Williams if he had anything to add to this account, and Williams replied, "I think you know what I did and everything is done (inaudible) and I did not decline the Odyssey House." Williams further explained that the court had "asked if I could do the Odyssey House and being honest with you, I told you that I would do my best, you told me that wasn't good enough." The court responded that it had only been looking for a commitment that Williams would complete the program, and Williams again stated that he could not commit to that.
¶ 7 The trial court sentenced Williams to 365 days of incarceration on each count, commenting "I hope you will take advantage, sir, of the opportunity to get some drug treatment while in prison." The court ordered the sentences to run consecutively to each other and to Williams's existing term of imprisonment. When this was explained to Williams, the following exchange occurred:
As Williams was being led from the courtroom immediately thereafter, he made a comment that the record transcribes as "inaudible."
¶ 8 Williams's comment was apparently audible to the trial court, which summoned Williams back into the courtroom. The following exchange then occurred:
This reaffirms the correctness of the decision.
The transcript ends at this point, indicating that the hearing was concluded.
¶ 9 The trial court entered a written judgment reaffirming the consecutive nature of Williams's prison terms. The written judgment also stated: "The court finds the defendant in contempt and orders 60 days to be served at the Salt Lake County jail prior to the sentence being served on this case." Williams appeals.
¶ 10 Williams argues that the findings of contempt must be vacated because the trial court failed to follow the proper procedure for imposing contempt, his behavior did not warrant contempt findings, and the period of incarceration imposed for the contempt exceeded the statutory maximum. "`The correct interpretation of a statute is a question of law and is reviewed for correctness.'" State v. Pixton, 2004 UT App 275, ¶ 4, 98 P.3d 433 (quoting State v. Larsen, 865 P.2d 1355, 1357 (Utah 1993)).
¶ 11 Williams also argues that the trial court failed to consider all legally relevant factors when it imposed consecutive sentences. We review a trial judge's sentencing decisions for abuse of discretion. See State v. Thorkelson, 2004 UT App 9, ¶ 12, 84 P.3d 854. "An abuse of discretion results when the judge fails to consider all legally relevant factors or if the sentence imposed is clearly excessive." State v. Valdovinos, 2003 UT App 432, ¶ 14, 82 P.3d 1167 (quotations and citation omitted).
¶ 12 Williams challenges the trial court's findings of contempt and the resulting imposition of sixty days jail time. We vacate the contempt findings because the trial court failed to make findings of fact establishing Williams's contemptuous behavior, and adequate justification for the contempt findings cannot be gleaned from the bare record before us.
¶ 13 Utah Code section 78-32-1 identifies multiple acts and omissions constituting contempt of court. See Utah Code Ann. § 78-32-1 (2002). The definition most applicable to the facts of this case is "[d]isorderly, contemptuous or insolent behavior toward the judge while holding the court, tending to interrupt the due course of a trial or other judicial proceeding." Id. § 78-32-1(1). This form of contempt constitutes direct contempt, i.e., contempt committed in the immediate view and presence of the judge, and "may be punished summarily." Id. § 78-32-3 (2002). The penalty for contempt may include Id. § 78-32-10 (2002).
¶ 14 A court's authority to impose contempt sanctions is not without limit. Indeed, every use of the contempt power, whether direct or indirect, "is subject to constitutional and statutory restraints regarding the process due to any person so accused." Crank v. Utah Judicial Council, 2001 UT 8, ¶25, 20 P.3d 307. Utah's contempt statutes represent a legislative attempt "to implement this mandate" of due process protection, id. at ¶ 26, and the procedural requirements of those statutes are a "prerequisite to the imposition of any sanctions," id. at ¶ 28.
¶ 15 Utah Code section 78-32-3, governing direct contempt, states, in part:
When a contempt is committed in the immediate view and presence of the court, or judge at chambers, it may be punished summarily, for which an order must be made, reciting the facts as occurring in such immediate view and presence, adjudging that the person proceeded against is thereby guilty of a contempt, and that he be punished as prescribed in [Utah Code section 78-32-10].
Utah Code Ann. § 78-32-3 (emphasis added). Here, the trial court failed to make factual findings setting out the basis for contempt sanctions against...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Valerios Corp. v. Macias
...action constituting contempt occurs in the immediate presence of the court, such as speaking disrespectfully to a judge. See State v. Williams, 2006 UT App 420, ¶ 13, 147 P.3d 497. Indirect contempt occurs “outside the presence of the court.” Gardiner, 2010 UT App 108, ¶ 36, 233 P.3d 500. H......
-
State v. Akers, 20170713-CA
...charges during sentencing as evidence that it considered all of the legally relevant factors in reaching its decision. See State v. Williams , 2006 UT App 420, ¶ 30, 147 P.3d 497. The information regarding the THC gummy worms therefore cannot be deemed irrelevant solely on the basis of its ......
-
Valerios Corp. v. Macias
...action constituting contempt occurs in the immediate presence of the court, such as speaking disrespectfully to a judge. See State v. Williams, 2006 UT App 420, ¶ 13, 147 P.3d 497. Indirect contempt occurs “outside the presence of the court.” Gardiner, 2010 UT App 108, ¶ 36, 233 P.3d 500. H......
-
State v. Valdez, 20160279-CA
...court relied on the reduction of charges in making its sentencing determinations, such reliance was not improper.¶ 11 In State v. Williams, 2006 UT App 420, 147 P.3d 497, we reviewed a sentence imposed by a district court that had "expressed its concern that the gravity of Williams's allege......